The study was focused on the socio-economic profile of farmers served by TASMORIS. It also identified and documented the economics of crop- ping patterns employed by farmers in irrigated and
areas of TASMORIS. Specifically, the study aimed to:
I . Determine the socio-economic profile of farmers served by TASMORIS;
2. Identify crops other than which farmers have been planting for crop diversification:
3. the economics of crop diversi-
fication, specifically cost, yield and gross and net returns;
4. Identify problems and situations affecting farmers’ production in relation to mar- keting, price and credit; and
Methodology
A questionnaire-interview schedule was pre- pared with the assistance of IIMI. The question-
naire-interview schedule was pre-tested the
survey was conducted.
A list of farmers under TASMORIS was
obtained from the NIA Tarlac t o facilitate
identification of respondents.
the first and second phases were
conducted in season,
respectively. Data gathered were compiled, tabula- ted and statistically
One hundred twenty-five respondents were interviewed during the first phase. Respondents consisted of farmers under TASMORIS whose farms were located a t specific laterals within the
system, 31 other farmers from the and 25
local traders. However, was terminated
after the first phase survey and data from the traders were only included during the same phase. Maintaining the original set of respondents, the
second phase added its sample size, farmer-
respondents. Nine respondents were replaced due relocation. Additional respondents were also interviewed.
Results and Discussion
To obtain an overview of the extent of crop diversification the system, the first survey inter- viewed specific farmers based on their location within the system. The second survey interviewed the same farmers but concentrated on cropping patterns and the economics of growing crops like rice, corn and mungbean.
Table I presents the demographic of
the sample population. Average ages of the farm- ers, their wives and children ranged from 46-50 years, 4 2 4 7 years and 16-17 years, respectively. On the average, a farmer finished grade five while his wife finished grade six. A farmer’s child was able t o finish a year in high school or at least graduated from elementary. Family size is relatively small,
with an average of three children or a farm household of five. Generally, a farmer has been farming for 25 years.
Rice-rice cropping pattern was
among farmers located at the portions closest the canals or dam. Other cropping patterns employed in the area which involved non-rice crops were
Demographic profile of farmer respondents
under TASMORIS.
Crop Years
Age (in years)
Farmer 50 46
Farmer's Wife 47 42
Children 17
Educational Attainment
(in grade levels)
Farmer 5 6
Farmer's Wife 5 6
Children 7 7
of Children 3 3
Experience 26 24
dominant among fanners located at the tail portion of the system while the rice-irrigated corn cropping
pattern was adopted farmers at the middle
section. Another cropping pattern involved the
of rice and non-rice crops
planted during the same cropping season. Crops were either planted in relay in the same area or simultaneously, with plots planted to various crops. Some farmers employed cropping patterns like rice-rainfed corn and rice-irrigated munghean.
The choice of crops or cropping patterns depend on a number of factors: Rice-rice farmers considered sufficient irrigation water supply and location of their farm; Rice-irrigated corn farmers attributed their reasons to experience; and insuf- ficient water prompted rice-rainfed mungbean farmers to adopt such cropping pattern. Soil and crop factors as well as market conditions and
availability of inputs were also by
farmer in choosing his cropping pattern.
2 shows percentage of land utilization
per cropping pattern. During dry season,
land utilization regardless of cropping pattern
decreased. From almost during the 'wet
season this was reduced to about one three
fourths during the dry season. Rice-rice cropping pattern had the highest land utilization during the to theirlocation within the
system, to dam).
However, land utilization under the rice-rice pat-
tern increased during the dry season.
Though still lower than the wet season utilization, an increase from the previous crop year was observed. The increase in land utilization for non-rice cropping pattern was due to the
on massive corn planting initiated by the govern- ment.
Table presents average yield/ ha, price/
and gross during the and
dry seasons of the farms in TASMORIS.
Rice exhibited the highest yield during the
dry season. Rice also generated the highest gross
returns spite of the low farmgate prices for that year. However, irrigated corn proved better in
terms ofproductionduring In
spite of a decrease in farmgate prices, farms
obtained an average gross return of PI
Yields of irrigated and rainfed munghean were low
during both and dry seasons.
Higher prices for munghean did not result in high gross returns.
Comparably, rainfed munghean had better yield than irrigated mungbean both dry seasons. Although there was a higher price for irrigated mungbean, rainfed munghean still earned a larger gross return. Farmers said that it was not the lack
of water which determined the good harvest for
Percent land utilization, TASMORIS, and dry seasons.
Season Season Season Season
Cropping Pattern Wet Wet
Rice Rice 98 72 98 99
Rice Non-Rice 58
Rice 91 92 76
Total yield, average price and gross returns of farms in TASMORIS, and
dry seasons.
Total Gross Total Gross
Yield Price Returns Yield Price Returns
Irrigated Rice 3165 2.84 9131 2814 3.15 8855 Irrigated Corn 2361 3.63 8557 347s 3.43 Mungbean I26 9.13 1241 10.00 998 Rainfed Mungbean 207 9.50 1972 I24 9.83 1241 Rainfed Corn 1096 4.15 4308
rnungbean but the timeliness of water supply. Water is crucial especially during the reproductive stage of mungbean.
Lack
of water is detrimental toflower and pod formation. cases were
observed in the project sites Farmers
preferred not to use irrigation water if it would be delayed.
Mean returns above variable costs to irri- gated and rainfed crops are shown in Table 4.
During the season, returns to rice and
irrigated corn were not different. However, during
4. Summary of mean returns above variable
cost of irrigated and rainfed crops,
MORIS, and dry seasons.
Irrigated Rice 4314 4930
Irrigated Corn 4371 7471
Semi-Irrigated Mungbean
Rainfed Munghean 686 43
Rainfed Corn 1407
the dry season, there was a marked
increase in returns to corn. Returns to
mungbean also the crop's potential for
planting in rainfed areas rather than in
areas. Although yields decreased during both crop years, rainfed mungbean
was
still more profitablethan imgated mungbean. This support the
observation that it is not only the amount of water that counts in mungbean production, but the timeliness of its availability.
Differences betweenmean returns ofcropsfor
both crop years were determined (Table 5). Rice
and irrigated corn have higher returns above
variable cost than mungbean during the
87 dry season. Returns above variable cost to
irrigated corn was higher than mungbean
during the dry season. Results, therefore,
indicate that corn is potential crop for
in the area. Returns for rainfed mungbean still
were higher than that of irrigated
though the difference was not significant. There-
fore, mungbean is for planting in
rainfed than irrigated areas in TASMORIS.
'First Progress and Interim Reports, TA 859 Philippines, Study on Irrigation Management for Crop August 1987 and September 1988 respectively.
Summary 1-test results for yield and returns above variable cost ofdifferent irrigated 1986187 and 1987188 drv seasons.
Differences
Yield
Ir. Rice vs. Mungbean na
Ir. Rice vs. Corn na Ir. Corn vs. Mungbean na Ir. Corn vs. RI. Corn
Ir. Mungbean vs. Rf. Mungbean
Rf. Corn vs. Mungbean na
Ir. Rice vs. Ir. Corn na Ir. Rice vs. Ir. Mungbean na
Corn vs. Mungbean na Mungbean vs. RI. Mungbean
**
Sienificant at*
Significant at 5%ns Not significant
na Not applicabie comparable)
Table 6 shows the average of labor, power, and materials incurred by farmers during the and dry seasons. Total incurred for labor, power and materials was equal to the total of production. A shift in
investment proved to be a disadvantage on rice production. With 54% of the total variable cost invested on labor and power during the
dry season, returns were higher than when 61% of
the total variable cost was invested on material inputs. Therefore, the amount of farm inputs should not only be increased but also properly managed to maximize production. Also irrigated non-rice crops, specifically irrigated corn, on farm inputs, rather than on labor and power. Farm operations like primary and secondary land preparation and crop management for non-rice crop production require intensive farm and machinery. However the demand for farm labor and power was offset by abundant family labor since the dry season months coincided with the schools’vacation. There were also transient farmers
from adjacent who were hired t o help plant either a second or third crop.
For capital, farmers availed of credit for farm inputs. Neighbors and friends were the common sources of credit. preferred to borrow
Returns above variable cost 4,436
**
3 4,433 2,964 ns (748) 721 ns (2,641) 5,334 ns 7,975 (447) nsfrom these due to their familiarity with the lenders and the relative ease of obtaining the needed money. Compared with local money lenders and traders who charge interest rates of per month, neighbors and relatives charged lower interest rates, sometimes even interest-free. However, most farmers still preferred to obtain loans from banks.
Farmers who avail of credit with high interest rates opted to plant less input-intensive crops like native corn and mungbean. They also reduced the size of their farms commensurate to the available capital. Expected profitability of the crop was also a in farm size.
Price was the foremost consideration in mar- keting farm produce. Other marketing factors considered were transportation and familiarity or established rapport with trader.
Marketing related problems were low and fluctuating prices, lack of transportation facilities, and distance of the market to the farm.
Production problems of farmers under were more water related. There was either lack of water downstream, excess water upstream, or inefficient delivery of water to some areas.
seasons. Labor and Power Cost 1986187 Irrigated Rice 2,580 363 Irrigated Corn 1,752 Mungbean Rainfed Corn 1,191 Rainfed Mungbean 444 Irrigated Rice 1,523 Semi-Irrigated 400 Mungbean Irrigated Corn 1,788 Rainfed Corn Rainfed Mungbean 336 Percent of Total Expenses 54 28 42 41 35 39 29 42 28 Material Cost 2,177 939 2,432 1,405 842 2,402 1,002 2,517 862 Percent of Total Expenses 46 72 58 59 65 61 71 58
Dry Season Project
Pilot test for the DSIMP was launched in November 1986. The project aimed to: ( I )
alleviate the problem of inadequate water during the dry season by planting
crops like corn, mungbean and sunflower, and (2)
assist small farmers increase their production and consequently their income.
The project provided technical and financial support to farmers who were members of an irrigators’association and who were willing to act
as cooperators. Technical and financial support
came from the National Administration
(NIA), and other government and private agencies, Farmers were extended technical support through seminars and training courses on production and management of non-rice crops and on water management practices. Individual loans amounting
to were granted to farmer cooperators to
purchase farm inputs like fertilizer and insecticides and payment for farm labor. Payment for irrigation services and association fees were also included in the loan. Loans were paid back to NIA upon of farm produce. In cases where farmers encountered marketing problems, NIA provided for outlets for their produce with the farmers having the option to solicit better buyers.
DSIMP covered irrigation systems,
namely, the Sta. Monica Communal Irrigation
System (SMCIS) in Tarlac and
TASMORIS, in Talaga, There
were farmer-cooperators from SMCIS and 11
from Talaga. All cooperators were considered as
respondents. For comparison, seven rice farmers who were not covered by the project were also interviewed.
Farmers’ profile under DSIMP was similar to farmers under TASMORIS. However, DSIMP farmers had a smaller household size. Average age
of children of farmers under DSIMP was years
old.
Of the three crops planted by farmers under DSIMP, corn yielded the highest. In spite of the
low price for corn, higher gross return
was obtained than from other crops (Table 7).
Compared with rice, irrigated corn still performed better. Irrigated mungbean in SMCIS had better yield than those in TASMORIS. Returns, how- ever, show that although corn production exhi- bited high gross earnings, net returns from it were very low (Table 8). Similar results were obtained for irrigated mungbean in SMCIS. Most of the expenses incurred in growing non-rice crops were on farm inputs like fertilizers and insecticides (Table 9).
Table 7. Total yield, price and gross returns of crops under DSIMP, dry season.
Total Gross
Returns N Yield Price
Crops DSIMP Support S M C I S Munghean 8 2,710 Sunflower 3 312 12.00 3,741 Sunflower 13.50 10,800 Mungbean 6 9.42 334 Talaga 6 2,071 3.80 1,870
Crops DSIMP Support
Rice 2.60 7,135
Table 8. Summary of mean returns variable cost of selected crops in SMCIS and TASMORIS, with o r without D S I M P support, dry season.
Returns above Variable